Virtual Communities PDF

Miia Äkkinen
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
OF ONLINE COMMUNITIES
HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

WORKING PAPERS
W-387
Miia Äkkinen
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
OF ONLINE COMMUNITIES
Information Systems Science

September
2005
HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU
WORKING PAPERS
W-387
HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU
PL 1210
FIN-00101 HELSINKI
FINLAND
© Miia Äkkinen and

Helsinki School of Economics
ISSN 1235-5674
ISBN 951-791-959-X (Electronic working paper)
Helsinki School of Economics -

HeSE print 2005
CONTENTS
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Definitions of virtual communities ................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Elements of virtual communities ............................................................................................. 8
2.2 Virtual communities, settlements and networks ...................................................................... 9
3 Classifications of virtual communities............................................................................................ 11

3.1 Content-based classifications................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Revenue-based classifications................................................................................................ 16
3.3 Classifications of members .................................................................................................... 19
4 Theoretical explanations on the reasons and motives to belong to an online community.............. 23

4.1 Economic theories.................................................................................................................. 23
4.1.1 Resource-based model ............................................................................................... 23
4.1.2 Economic theory ........................................................................................................ 25
4.2 Social theories ........................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.1 Social exchange theory .............................................................................................. 25
4.2.2 Social identity theory ................................................................................................. 26
4.2.3 Social influence model............................................................................................... 28
4.3 Interest-based theories............................................................................................................ 31
4.3.1 Self-interest vs. community-interest .......................................................................... 31
4.3.2 Self vs. altruistic......................................................................................................... 33
4.3.3 Value-interest framework .......................................................................................... 33
5 Summary and conclusions .............................................................................................................. 35

5.1 Classifications ........................................................................................................................ 35
5.2 Theoretical explanations ........................................................................................................ 36
5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 37
6 Suggestions for further research ..................................................................................................... 38
7 References....................................................................................................................................... 42
1
Figures
Figure 1: Classification of virtual communities by Stanoevska-Slabeva & Schmid (2001) ................... 11
Figure 2: Community types by Hagel & Armstrong (1997).................................................................... 13
Figure 3: Classification of virtual communities by Lechner & Hummel (2002)..................................... 14
Figure 4: A typology of virtual communities by Porter (2004) .............................................................. 14
Figure 5: Five Ps of Virtual Communities by Porter (2004).................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Classification of virtual communities by Plant (2003)............................................................. 16
Figure 7: Types of revenues by Hagel and Armstrong (1997) ................................................................ 17
Figure 8: Classification of virtual communities by Hanson (2000)......................................................... 17
Figure 9: Classification of virtual communities by Franz & Wolkinger (2003)...................................... 18
Figure 10: Objectives of virtual communities by Cothrel (2000)............................................................ 19
Figure 11: Classification of members in virtual communities................................................................. 20
Figure 12: Theoretical explanations......................................................................................................... 38
Tables
Table 1: The most commonly cited definitions of virtual communities (Lee, Vogel & Limayem 2003) 8
Table 2: Elements of virtual communities ................................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Classification of communities according to their members by Cothrel 2000............................ 19
Table 4: Resources and benefits of communities by Butler (2001)......................................................... 24
Table 5: Factors affecting the knowledge contribution (Wasko & Faraj, 2005....................................... 27
Table 6: Participation values (Dholakia et al. 2004)................................................................................ 29
Table 7: Category descriptions by Ridings and Gefen (2004)................................................................. 30
Table 8: Returns from participating in communities (Wasko & Faraj, 2000) ......................................... 31
Table 9: Self- and altruistic reasons for knowledge sharing (Chesney 2004) ......................................... 33
Table 10: Value-Interest framework for reasons to join/belong to online communities (Äkkinen &
Tuunainen, 2005) ............................................................................................................................. 34
2
Table 11: Summary of classifications for online communities................................................................ 35
Table 12: Summary of theories and models related to the reasons and motives to join online
communities ..................................................................................................................................... 37
3
Abstract
The purpose of this working paper is to provide conceptual foundations for the reader
interested in online communities. A useful summary of research conducted on online
communities is provided in this paper. Beside several classifications for online communities,
we will also pay attention to the questions why consumers belong to online communities, and
what are the reasons and motives for consumers to join these communities. The different
perspectives for the reasons and motives complement each other. We have proposed a value-
interest framework where several theories are combined into one, integrated model. The
value-interest framework looks the motives from several perspectives simultaneously. It must
be remembered, however, that beside this integrated model, it is fruitful to look at the motives
and reasons from the different perspectives separately, too.
1 Introduction
Virtual communities – or online communities as they are often called nowadays - have
become a very popular phenomenon in our life. Discussion groups, bulletin board systems
and all the other possibilities of online communities allow people to communicate with each
other on the Internet. I guess one of the reasons why virtual communities have become so
popular today is that the communities bring some collectivity to this world where people are
isolated, far away from each other and always in a hurry.
The information technology has developed enormously during the past years, and thus the
physical location of people and the distance between people are not any issues anymore.
Internet makes possible to work at home, but people still seem to need collectivity which can
be found in communities, whether they are online or offline. When people are getting more
and more far away from each other, virtual communities can provide information, help and
support. Already in 1993, when the use of the Internet was still at its infancy compared to the
situation today, Howard Rheingold almost praised the power of virtual communities and the
support they give for an individual. He told about an accident that happened to his child, and
how he received help and support more quickly from the people in the discussion group than
by relying on to public health care. Also here in Finland where the population is much
4
smaller, the communities that provide peer-to-peer support have become very popular. For
example, the knowledge how to take care of babies does not come across from one generation
to another in the same way than previously, because families live far away from each other,
and young mothers are often alone with their troubles and concerns. I personally found myself
using an email-based discussion group when our first child had just born, and I needed
information and support from people in a similar situation. I joined a discussion group
focused on baby-care and breastfeeding and suddenly I had hundreds of mothers in my
network who gave me advice and told their experiences in this area.
When the Internet provides enormous amounts of information, a virtual community can serve
also as a tool to filter this information. If you, for example, are searching for the hotel on the
Internet, the experiences and recommendations of other people are valuable and can make the
selection easier. Especially if you get a recommendation from a community member with
whom you share similar values, the value of recommendation is even higher compared to a
recommendation given by a stranger. Also researchers use communities for exchanging
information. The researchers have founded online communities where the specialists of
certain field discuss from the topic. The people interested in the environment protection will
find valuable information on the discussion groups focused on this theme. The members in
such community will perhaps see the world “through green eye-glasses”, and the information
is filtered through similar values. The online communities are also an excellent tool to
disseminate information very quickly. For example in December 2004 when there was a large
tsunami disaster in Thailand area, people quickly started disseminating information and
searching their friends or families in discussion groups, weblogs and other online
communities.
People suffer from hurry all the time and their calendars are full booked. “It sounds nice but I
can’t understand how on earth people have time for such discussion groups” – this is a very
common comment when I am having discussions on online communities with other people.
At the same time the members of online communities say that the communities give so much
to them that they just have to participate the discussion or at least read the messages others
have written. This is an interesting paradox, in today’s world of eternal hurry, discussion
5
groups are an extra burden for somebody, but at the same time, an extra resource for
somebody else.
In the end of 1990’s there were high expectations on the business value of virtual
communities. In 1998 Timmers classified the business models in e-business and claimed that
virtual communities would be ”the” business model of the e-business. In 1997 Hagel and
Armstrong forecasted great profits for companies that would be in this business – they
believed in the “big bang” effect, which means that after collecting user profiles for about five
years, the companies would achieve enormous success.
Time has gone, but almost no profits have been generated. Companies have spent enormous
sums on brand building of the virtual communities but these haven’t been effective
investments. There are only a few companies that have gained success concentrating on the
“standalone” virtual community business, for example Yahoo (http://www.yahoo.com) that in
2004 was hosting more than 800.000 virtual communities and that is generating revenues
from advertising. The reason for the lack of success seems obvious: revenues are just not
sufficient without a big partner in the background to cover marketing expenses (Franz and
Wolkinger, 2003). There has been discussion if the companies should focus on more indirect
effects of the virtual communities instead of trying to generate revenues on the standalone
basis.
Timmers mentioned already in 1998 that virtual communities are becoming an additional
function to enhance the attractiveness and opportunities for new services of several of the
other business models (e.g. e-malls, collaborative platforms, third-party marketplaces).
Nowadays most e-shops compete on price (Elliot 2002), perhaps virtual communities could
provide companies new competitive weapons. Zott, Amit and Donlevy (2000) have found out
some means by which their research sample created stickiness, i.e. the high attractivity of the
web site. Online communities and discussion forums could thus attract more visitors to the
company’s web site. Zott et al. (2000) claimed that companies should reward customers for
loyalty, personalize the product or service offering, create virtual communities and develop
ways of building trust. Amit and Zott (2001) have further noted that virtual communities
6
could be used as complementary service to provide more value for the customers and the
company.
Several companies nowadays have discussion forums or other online communities on their
web sites. Information technology, however, only provides technological infrastructures in
which social activity may take place (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). According to Butler (2001)
the communities must do more than simply provide facilities for communication, they must
also be sites of social structures that support ongoing activity. The availability of a technical
infrastructure does not guarantee that individuals will be willing to join and participate in
online social structures.
The purpose of my dissertation thesis is to find out ways how companies can use virtual
communities in their business so that the communities would create value both for the
company and the consumer. The purpose of this working paper is to deepen the knowledge on
virtual communities and to help the author in proposing the appropriate research questions.
In this working paper the online communities are first defined, after which some
classifications for online communities and their members will be presented. The main focus in
this working paper is to look at the reasons and motives why people join and participate
online communities. The working paper concludes with the summary of all discussed themes.
7
2 Definitions of virtual communities
A review of definitions (Lee, Vogel & Limayem, 2003) found that the most commonly cited
definitions for virtual communities are the ones by Rheingold (1993), followed by Hagel and
Armstrong (1997), and Jones and Rafaeli (2000).
Author(s) Definition
Rheingold (1993) Social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough
people carry on public discussions long enough, with
sufficient human feelings, to form webs of personal
relationships in cyberspace.
Hagel and Armstrong (1997) Are computer-mediated spaces where there is a potential for
an integration of content and communication with an
emphasis on member-generated content.
Jones and Rafaeli (2000) Are symbolically delineated computer-mediated spaces…
allow groups of individuals to attend and contribute to
similar set of computer-mediated interpersonal interactions.
Table 1: The most commonly cited definitions of virtual communities (Lee, Vogel & Limayem 2003)
Based on the similarities on these definitions, characteristics of a virtual community can be

identified. A virtual community exists in cyberspace, having its activities supported by
computer-based IT. It focuses on communications and interactions driven by participants and
emphasizes on the relationship among members in a virtual community and the role of IT.
(Yap & Bock, 2005)
2.1 Elements of virtual communities
Hagel and Armstrong (1997) have first defined the elements of the virtual community
business model. First of all, virtual communities are identified by a specific focus
(geographical area, topic, vertical industry, functional expertise etc.). In virtual communities a
published content is integrated with communication. Thus understanding of the content can be
clarified and evaluated by communicating with its publisher and with other members. In
addition to published content, virtual communities provide environments for the generation
and dissemination of member-generated content. Hagel and Armstrong (1997) see that virtual
communities will seek to aggregate the broadest range of high-quality resources possible,
8
including competing publishers and vendors. And as last element, they see that virtual
communities will increasingly be commercially orientated.
Typaldos (2000) - based on her experiences in academic and business life - has defined virtual
communities to consist of 12 elements. The following listing is similar to Typaldos’ work.
The 12 principles function as a hierarchy. The chief principle, purpose, is supported by the
other principles.
Principle Explanation
Purpose Community exists because the members share a common purpose which
can only be accomplished jointly.
Identity Members can identify each other and build relationships.
Reputation Members build a reputation based on the expressed opinions of others.
Governance The facilitators and members of the community assign management duties
to each other, allowing the community to grow.
Communication Members must be able to interact with each other.
Groups Community members group themselves according to specific interests or
tasks.
Environment A synergistic environment enables community members to achieve their
purpose.
Boundaries The community knows why it exists and what or who is outside and
outside.
Trust Building trust between members and with community facilitators increases
group efficiency and enables conflict resolution.
Exchange The community recognizes forms of exchange values, such as knowledge,
experience, support, barter or money.
Expression The community itself has a “soul” or “personality”; members are aware of
what other community members are doing.
History The community must keep track of past events and must react and change
in response to it.
Table 2: Elements of virtual communities
(www.mongoosetech.com/realcommunities/12prin.html on March 18th, 2004)
2.2 Virtual communities, settlements and networks
Blanchard and Markus (2004) highlight the difference between virtual settlements and virtual
communities. According to Jones (1997), virtual settlements can be said to exist when
objective measures of computer-mediated interaction – such as the number of messages, the
proportion of public communications, the proportion of active members, and continuity of
participation – exceed some threshold levels. However, only those virtual settlements in
9
which the members have developed affective bonds qualify as virtual communities. Jones
concludes that not all virtual settlements are virtual communities, and what distinguishes
between the two is the presence of affective bonds. Blanchard and Markus (2004) ask if these
virtual settlements should try to develop into virtual communities. The answer is “not
necessarily”. Some organizations, like Amazon.com’s online book reviews, meet their
business objectives perfectly well.
One sometimes gets the impression that the requirements for virtual community development
are few: build a virtual meeting place and people will come. The research, however, shows
that there’s more to it than that. Building a virtual meeting place may produce a virtual
settlement. But a virtual community is a virtual settlement in which a sense of virtual
community co-exists with a set of community-like behaviours and processes. It may be
difficult or impossible to create true virtual communities under the aegis of a commercial
venture. Further, it may possible achieve adequate commercial rewards without creating a
virtual community – a virtual settlement may suffice. (Blanchard & Markus, 2004).
Wasko and Faraj (2005) have studied why individuals help strangers in electronic networks of
practices. In their earlier papers the authors used the concept “electronic communities of
practice”1 but now they use the concept “electronic network of practice” when referring to the
same thing. According to the authors, electronic network refers to an open network of people
that are strangers for each other while electronic community refers to a more closed
community of people that are familiar to each other.
In this paper the term “virtual community” includes both virtual settlements and virtual
networks.
1
Community of practice is one type of online communities. See chapter 3.1 for community classifications.
10
3 Classifications of virtual communities
3.1 Content-based classifications
Nowadays perhaps the most comprehensive classification related to the content of the virtual
community is based on the study of Stanoevska-Slabeva and Schmid (2001). They have
divided the communities in four groups: discussion, task / goal oriented, virtual world and
hybrid solutions.
Virtual Communities
Discussion Task / Goal Oriented Virtual World Hybrid
P2P Communication, Design / Avatars

Relationships Open Source Online games
Topic Oriented Online Learning
Communities of Transaction
Practice
Indirect Discussion
Communities
Figure 1: Classification of virtual communities by Stanoevska-Slabeva & Schmid (2001)
The first group consists of discussion communities that are dedicated to the exchange of
information with reference to a defined topic. Emphasis is on content generation and
exchange is related to a clearly defined topic. Four subcommunities are included in discussion
communities: 1) discussion communities with direct person-to-person communication (e.g.
relationship communities and social and help alliances), 2) topic-oriented communities which
are related to certain defined topic (for example sports communities, product communities,
ecological communities, etc.), 3) communities of practice, which emerge in organizations
around certain topic and know-how, and 4) indirect discussion communities with indirect
communication between members (for example Amazon.com review community).
11
The second group is composed of task- and goal-oriented communities that refer to
communities striving to achieve a common goal by way of cooperation. The following three
subtypes of task- and goal-oriented communities can be defined: 1) transaction communities,
where the emphasis is the performance of market transactions, and which arise around
electronic commerce platforms, 2) design communities (for example open source
communities where the basic aim is the common design and development of a product), and
3) online learning communities.
Virtual worlds, the third group, are online communities arising around virtual worlds and
games. The virtual worlds can provide a mapping of a real setting or can provide fantasy
worlds. One special type of virtual worlds are online games. Information about participants
are often represented through avatars.
The last group, hybrid communities, can contain several types of communities. An example of
a hybrid community could be an online store with a three-dimensional interface simulating
the store rooms and offering virtual sales persons as sales assistant. The user can take the role
of a windows shopper, of a buyer or of a participant in organized games or product design
teams. He can get information about products in the electronic catalogue, in chats, product
forums and through the recommendation collection. He could also visit the chat café or some
of the other amusement opportunities.
Hagel and Armstrong (1997) have divided communities in two main types: consumer-focused
communities and business-to-business communities.
12
Community Types
Consumer-focused Business-to-business
communities communities
Geographic Vertical industry

Demographic Functional
Topical Geographic
Business category
communities
Figure 2: Community types by Hagel & Armstrong (1997)
In a consumer environment, community development may take place in one of three

directions: geographic, demographic, or topical. Geographic communities are formed around
a physical location in which all the community’s participants have a common interest.
Demographic communities focus on gender, life stage, or ethic origin. Examples include
communities for teens, single parents, empty-nesters, and seniors. Topical communities center
on topics of interest (excluding geography, gender, or life stage) and include communities
focused on hobbies and pastimes such as painting, music, or gardening and on issues of
interest such as politics or spiritual beliefs. A topical community such as travel could develop
a subcommunity focused on the travel needs of parents with young children or
subcommunities focused on certain destinations such as Venice.
Business-to-business communities are divided in four groups: vertical industry communities,

functional communities, geographic communities, and business category communities. An
example of vertical industry communities is a community of software developers, where
developers are forming user groups. Functional communities serve the needs of users
representing a specific business function, such as marketing or purchasing. Geographic
communities in business-to-business environment may be an offshoot of local consumer
communities, in which businesses catering to the needs of the consumers in a specific location
13
feel a need to start communicating with each other. The business category community would
be geared to meet the needs of certain types of companies, such as small businesses or
franchises. Subcommunities evolve also in business-to-business environment: the organizer
of a vertical industry community such as apparel could over time see the community branch
out into functional or business category communities.
Beside business-to-consumer and business-to-business communities, Lechner and Hummel

(2002) include also consumer-to-consumer communities in their classification. There are five
types of communities in their classification: 1) games, 2) interest, 3) business-to-business, 4)
business-to-consumer, and 5) consumer-to-consumer.
Virtual Communities
Games Interest B2B B2C C2C
Figure 3: Classification of virtual communities by Lechner & Hummel (2002)
C.E. Porter (2004) has developed a typology that composes of several classifications. The
proposed typology (see Figure 4) of virtual communities includes categories in two levels,
establishment and relationship orientation.
Virtual Communities
Establishment Member-Initiated Organization-Sponsored
Relationship Social Professional Commercial Nonprofit Government

Orientation
Figure 4: A typology of virtual communities by Porter (2004)
The two first-level categories are member-initiated and organization-sponsored. Member-

initiated communities are those where the community was established by, and remains
managed by, members. Organization-sponsored communities are communities that are
sponsored by either commercial or non-commercial (for example government, non-profit)
organizations.
14
At the second level of the typology, virtual communities are categorized based on the general
relationship orientation of the community. Relationship orientation refers to the type of
relationship fostered among members of the community. Member-initiated communities
foster either social or professional relationships among members. Organization-sponsored
communities foster relationships both among members (for example customers and
employees) and between individual members and the sponsoring organization. (Porter, 2004).
According to Porter (2004) the literature suggests that five attributes could be used to
characterize virtual communities: (1) purpose, (2) place, (3) platform, (4) population
interaction structure, and (5) profit model.
Attribute Explanation
Purpose The subject that forms the basis of interaction in a virtual
- content of interaction community, e.g. golfing or living with diabetes
Place • Virtual (exists only in virtual space)
- extent of technology • Hybrid (exists in both physical and virtual space)
mediation of interaction
Platform • Synchronous (e.g. chat)
- design of interaction • Asynchronous (e.g. email)
• Hybrid
Population interaction • Virtual communities as computer-supported social
structure networks
- pattern of interaction • Virtual communities as small-groups or networks
• Virtual communities as virtual publics
Profit model The profit model attribute focuses on whether a virtual
- return on interaction community creates tangible economic value.
• Revenue-generating (host, facilitator, owner)
- community enablers that host communities (e.g.
Yahoo)
- trading/sharing communities that facilitate the
exchange of products or services among community
members and often earn revenue via transaction fees
(e.g. eBay)
- communities as a website feature of corporations;
communities are used for revenue-generating
transactions
• Non-revenue generating
Figure 5: Five Ps of Virtual Communities by Porter (2004)
15
The relationship orientations in Figure 4 can be explained by these five attributes. For
example social or commercial online communities can be described by five Ps of Porter
(2004).
3.2 Revenue-based classifications
The following classifications are focused not only on the content of the community but the
profitability of them and the classifications are related more to the business model
perspective.
Plant (2003) has three axes in his classification: 1) the regulation of the community (regulated
– not regulated), 2) is the community a for-profit community or a not-for-profit community,
and 3) the openness of the community (open – closed). He finds examples from each
combination, e.g. education communities belong to the cell not-for-profit / open / regulated.
regulation
for-profit
activity
openness
Figure 6: Classification of virtual communities by Plant (2003)
Hagel and Armstrong (1997) have divided the types of revenues for community organizers in
three types: subscription fees, usage fees and member fees. Subscription fees consist of a
fixed monthly charge for participation in the community. Usage fees are charges based on the
number of hours of usage or the number of pages accessed or some combination of the two.
Member fees are divided in two sub-groups: 1) content delivery fees that are charges for
downloading specific information, such as a company investment report or a magazine article,
and 2) service fees that are charges for specialized services, such as a notification service
when specified vendor products are offered for sale at predetermined price.
16
Types of revenues
Subscription fees Usage fees Member fees
Content delivery fees
Service fees
Figure 7: Types of revenues by Hagel and Armstrong (1997)
Hanson (2000) divides the communities according to the basis of revenue generation to
provider-based revenues and user-based revenues. Provider-based revenues include revenues
from content and sponsorship, retail alliances, exclusive deal or banner advertising. User-
based revenues include product and sales revenues, subscription fees and pay-per-view
transaction fees.
Revenue
Generation
Provider- User-
based based
Content, Product and

Sponsorship Sales Revenue
Retail Subscription
Alliances Fees
Exclusive Pay-per-view
Deal Transaction Fees
Banner
Advertising
Figure 8: Classification of virtual communities by Hanson (2000)
Franz and Wolkinger (2003) have also classified models for revenue generating in virtual
communities. Their contribution is in dividing the virtual communities in two main groups
according to the revenue generation model which can be standalone or add-on. As mentioned
in the beginning of this paper, there has lately been discussion if the companies should
concentrate on more indirect effects of the virtual communities instead of trying to generate
17
revenues on the standalone basis. The standalone revenues include advertising, e-commerce,
subscriptions and other sources. The add-on part includes indirect revenues from customer
integration, market research and product development.
Virtual Communities
Standalone Add-on
Advertising Subscriptions Customer Market Product

Integration Research Development
E-Commerce Other Sources

finding ideas surveys, tests, questionnaires mass customization
creating product concepts demographic data customer integration
defining projects lead user concept
developing constructing drafts product testing
evaluating prototypes
introducing innovations
Figure 9: Classification of virtual communities by Franz & Wolkinger (2003)
The following elements that are often mentioned in the literature can also be added to the add-
on element that is providing indirect revenues for the company:
- improve products
- innovation process
- discover new streams of revenue
- customer loyalty
- consumer stickiness
- customer feedback
- consumer created content
- customer information
- possibility to influence the action of users
Cothrel (2000) has presented the following objectives for virtual communities. The objectives
are to build stronger relationship, increase efficiency and new innovations, acquire new
customer and direct revenues. These objectives of Cothrel can be combined with the previous
model. The first three modules cover the add-on part in the previous model and the “direct
revenues” module is similar to “standalone” element in the previous model.
18
Objectives
Building stronger Increasing efficiency, Acquiring Direct

relationship new innovations new customers revenues
“add-on” elements in Figure 9 “standalone” element

in previous Figure 9
Figure 10: Objectives of virtual communities by Cothrel (2000)
Holmström (2000) has divided the purposes of online communities in three areas: interactive
purposes, indirect strategic purposes, and direct commercial purposes. These concepts could
perhaps be integrated by looking on the add-on element in the above model and examine it by
purposes. Cothrel (2000) has examined the communities according to their members.
Business-to-business Business-to-consumer Employee-to-employee

Members Customer Consumer Employees
Supplier
Distributor
Objectives Stronger relationships Stronger relationships Stronger relationships
Insight Insight Insight
Efficiency Low customer Efficiency
Innovation acquisition costs Innovation
Revenues Revenues Revenues
Table 3: Classification of communities according to their members by Cothrel 2000
3.3 Classifications of members
Because different type of members may have different kind of motivations and reasons to join
online communities, the member types are first classified. Members are examined here also in
relation to trust.
Members can be classified in two levels. The first level focuses on the actual membership of
the community (member vs. non-member), and on the second level the members are specified
more accurately on different member types.
19
Virtual
communities
level 1 member non-member
lurker
user
level 2
active user
lead user
Figure 11: Classification of members in virtual communities
Member vs. non-member. In the first level the interest is in the membership of the
community, the consumer is a member of the virtual community or is not. According to
Brown et al. (2001), community members in retailer sites account for 1/3 of all users but
generate 2/3 of all online sales. It is believed that virtual communities lead to higher customer
purchase and retention rates and increased visit frequency. The authors also believe that
community members are more likely to purchase online than non-members.
Lurker vs. poster. Preece et al. (2004 forthcoming) have divided the members to passive
lurkers and active posters. The majority of members in communities are lurkers that just read
the messages that others write. Preece et al. (2004) were looking after reasons why lurkers
will not participate in active discussions and actually found many reasons. One common
explanation for example was that lurkers don’t have to ask questions in a discussion group
because by just following the discussions they get answers to their own questions, too.
Traditionally community moderators have eagerly tried to convert lurkers into active posters.
Preece et al. (2004), however, conclude that this need not be done.
The literature related especially to open-source communities talks a lot about so called free-
riders. For example Wasko and Faraj (2005), mentioned also in Chapter 2.2, have studied why
individuals help strangers in the electronic networks of practices. It seems irrational that
individuals voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and knowledge toward the collective
benefit, when they can easily free-ride on the efforts of others. However, if everyone chose to
20
free-ride, the electronic network of practice would cease to exist. Theories of collective action
help explain why individuals in a collective choose not to free-ride, and suggest that
individuals forego the tendency to free-ride due to the influence of social capital (Coleman
1990, Putnam 1993 and 1995).
User vs. active (or power) user. Are there differences between standard user and very active
users? In a commercial virtual community, active members provide valuable information for
new members. Some companies also reward active members for such operation.
User vs. lead user. Franz and Wolkinger (2003) have compared the behaviour of standard
user and lead user in an Austrian virtual community. According to von Hippel (1986) lead
users are defined as users that are “at the leading edge” in terms of a related new product and
who expect a relatively high benefit from solutions to satisfy their needs. Franz and
Wolkinger (2003) that these lead users may not be confused with power users as their
activeness is based on their activities concerning the design and development of the
community. Franz and Wolkinger (2003) found differences in the behaviour of standard and
lead users, the lead users for example are more willing to pay for typical community tools and
services and they are more interested in entertainment and communication than in the offered
content.
Trust and membership. Gefen (2002) claims that customer loyalty, in general, is about
earning customer trust: customer who trust the vendor will come back and will recommend
the vendor to other customers. And vice versa, customers who don’t trust the vendor will not
recommend the vendor. Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) mention the process of transference which
means that individuals begin trusting unknown others because the unknown others are trusted
by a person they trust. This is exactly what happens in virtual communities. When one
member writes in the community about his experiences on the successful purchase he made in
some e-shop and about the excellent service he received there, the other members may go
shopping there, too. They start to trust an unfamiliar e-shop because the community member
they trust, has trust in it.
Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa (2004) studied the development of initial trust in an online
company by new customers. They found that reputation of the company and the willingness
21
of the company to customize it’s products and services affect the initial trust. Koufaris and
Hampton-Sosa (2004) continue that overall, trust has a positive effect on customer attitude
towards the company and customers who trust a company are more likely to buy from its web
site. Mass customization may increase customer trust due to its inherent need for interaction
and communication between the company and its customers.
Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa (2004) believe that there are tools that would promote trust. The
tools mentioned are trusted third parties, online reputation systems, agents, virtual reality
technologies, economic incentive mechanisms, government involvement and video-
conferencing. In my opinion, also virtual communities should be included in this list.
Rheingold stated already in 1993 that individuals are using new technologies, such as the
Internet, to fulfill both social and economic goals. There are a few studies that have
approached the reasons why people join virtual communities. Butler (2001) has provided a
resource-based model of online social structures which suggests that unless provided with
economic and/or social benefits, customers will not contribute to such forums. Gu and
Jarvenpaa (2003) used economic theory, social exchange theory, and social identity theory to
understand incentives in technical discussion boards. They found out that self-interest,
reciprocity, and identity are three core concepts associated with voluntary contributions in
shared databases and public forums (Gu and Jarvenpaa, 2003). Reasons why people join
virtual communities are studied also by Wasko and Faraj (2000, 2005) in their knowledge
related research and by Dholakia et al. (2004) in their study on social influence model in the
online communities. Ridings and Gefen (2004) have studied the virtual community attraction
and examined why people hang out online.
It must be noted that in this paper we do not make a difference between motives to join an
online community or to stay in it, and the motives are discussed in one group. An individual
may join the community in order to find some peer-to-peer support but may stay in it for
example because of the addiction for the Internet and this community.
22
4 Theoretical explanations on the reasons and motives to belong to an online
community
4.1 Economic theories
Hagel and Armstrong (1997, 26-30) pay a special attention to the economics and to the
change in power between vendor and customer. Because of virtual communities the power is
shifting from vendor to customer thus creating reverse markets. The power of this shift has
not, however, been as powerful as Hagel and Armstrong have expected.
Hagel and Armstrong expected that the virtual communities would accelerate the process of
aggregating purchasing power. Individuals in virtual communities often represent the most
attractive purchasers of specific categories of products and services. Through their distinctive
focus, virtual communities thus serve as magnets, conjoining customers who share common
purchase profiles and who collectively represent a disproportionate amount of the purchase
activity in specific transaction categories. Virtual communities will bring purchasers together
in environments that will make them far more effective in leveraging their collective power.
Virtual communities also arm potential purchasers with far more information than they have
typically been able to access conveniently and cost effectively in the past. Moving away from
this traditional information asymmetry is likely to create reverse markets in which power
shifts to the customers. The sharing of information between customers is growing, and no
combination of published experts could match the collective insight and experience of a
community of people who share a passionate interest.
This shift in power is more a macro-level phenomenon, and that’s why we will next look at
the economic reasons from a micro-level perspective of a consumer.
4.1.1 Resource-based model
According to the resource-based model for online social structures model, people use their
resources, namely time, energy, attention, and knowledge for the purposes of the community
(Butler, 2001). If the perceived benefits from the community membership exceed the
sacrificed resources, the community will create value for its members. It is like the classic
23
definition of customer perceived value: value will be created for the customer if he or she will
perceive more benefits than sacrifices (Zeithaml, 1988). Butler (2001) links the perceived
benefits and sacrificed resources to the amount of members. If the perceived benefits from the
community membership exceed the sacrificed resources, the community will create value for
its members, and the amount of members will grow. But if the perceived benefits are less than
the sacrificed resources, the members will leave the community and there will be a
membership loss.
Butler (2001) has created a comprehensive list of the benefits that are provided for the
members of traditional (offline) social groups and communities. The benefits of the offline
social structures are opportunities for affiliation or companionship, opportunities to influence
people, social support, access to information, and the ability to disseminate ideas rapidly, and
support for collective action. Online social structures provide a variety of benefits by
supporting the development of interpersonal relationships, feelings of companionship, and
perceptions of affiliation, encouraging discussion and knowledge sharing, allowing
individuals to access information and quickly disseminate their ideas, providing social and
emotional support, and enabling collective activities such as software development and
political action. Social structures provide both in online and offline communities a variety of
benefits for individual members, enabling them to attract and retain members. Whether the
goal is to support professional development, provide social support, develop the market for a
product, or engage in collective action, social structures rely on the continued involvement of
individuals.
Sacrificed resources: Perceived benefits:

• Time • Opportunities for affiliation or companionship
• Energy • Opportunities to influence people
• Attention • Social support
• Knowledge • Access to information
• Ability to disseminate ideas rapidly
• Support for collective action
• Support the development of interpersonal relationships,
feelings of companionship, and perceptions of affiliation
• Enable collective activities (e.g. software development
and political action)
Table 4: Resources and benefits of communities by Butler (2001)
24
4.1.2 Economic theory
Gu and Jarvenpaa (2003) use the economic theory in their study on online discussion boards for
technical support. A person will contribute only if the benefits overweight the costs. The authors refer to
Olson (1965) when saying that in collective settings such as discussion boards where there are no
incentives to contribute, and hence no possibility of self-interested action, the equilibrium prediction is
of no contribution. Incentives are tangible or intangible returns valued by the contributor and they are
supposed to increase the benefits.
Gu and Jarvenpaa proposed that user contribution increases with incentives provided by discussion
boards. They also believed that user contribution increases with other users’ contribution level with
competitive incentives. Incentives are justified based on the economic theory that they increase
customers’ utility for contributions.
4.2 Social theories
4.2.1 Social exchange theory
The other theory used by Gu and Jarvenpaa (2003) is the theory on social exchange. Social exchange
theory argues that people will contribute not because of benefits from incentives per se, but because of
benefits resulting from what is received in return, or future reciprocity (Bearman 1997, Blau 1964).
People make contributions as long as others are believed to reciprocate. Social exchange theory (Blau
1964) posits that individuals engage in social interaction based on an expectation that it will lead in
some way to social rewards such as approval, status, and respect. This suggests that one potential way
an individual can benefit from active participation is the perception that participation enhances his or
her personal reputation in the network. Building reputation is a considered a strong motivator for active
participation (Donath 1999).
Discussion boards promote social exchanges between those customers posting questions and those
providing answers. Social exchange theory argues that the expectation of reciprocity motivates
individuals to contribute above and beyond the equilibrium predicted by economic models of utility
(Blau 1964). Social exchange theory suggests that the key to increasing customer contribution is to
increase other customers’ contributions.
25
4.2.2 Social identity theory
The third theory in the study of Gu and Jarvenpaa (2003) is the social identity theory. This theory
describes how a customer identifies with the other customers. The theory links others’ contributions to
the way that discussion boards help members define and maintain their social identity. In social identity
theory, a sense of unity among customers engenders cooperation and hence motivates contribution.
People derive a sense of self from the entities to which they belong and / or participate and this identity
affects how they respond and act (Hogg and Terry 2000). Social identity refers to “the individual’s
knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance
to him of this group membership” (Tajfel 1972, p.292, in Hogg and Terry 2000).
Social identity is generated through self-categorization. People categorize each other into “in-group”
and “out-group” based on perceived similarities (we) and differences (they). Those who are placed into
the same category will no longer be considered individually but depersonalized into one entity or in-
group. Self-categorization generates group-like thinking and behavior. Those who are in the same in-
group category are treated favorably, and those in a different category, or in an out-group, are less likely
to receive favorable treatment. Categorization is expected to be particularly strong in computer-
mediated contexts because communication in such a setting masks individuating information of self and
others (Lea and Spears 1992). The more limited the cues on others, the more people are likely to
stereotype and over-attribute, and the more they tend to assume similarity with the in-group and
dissimilarity with the out-group (Lea and Spears 1992).
People may, however, be motivated to share with others due to a sense of social norm or social
identification, not necessary in return for personal gain. It has been especially mentioned by Wasko and
Faraj (2005) that individuals voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and knowledge toward the
collective benefit, when they can easily free-ride on the efforts of others. Wasko and Faraj (2005) have
focused on the question why individuals help strangers in these electronic networks. There is no
immediate benefit to the contribution, and free-riders are able to acquire the same knowledge as
26
everyone else. To understand this paradox, they applied theories of collective action to examine how
individual motivations and social capital influence knowledge contribution in electronic networks2.
It seems irrational that individuals voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and knowledge toward the
collective benefit, when they can easily free-ride on the efforts of others. However, if everyone chose to
free-ride, the electronic network of practice would cease to exist. Theories of collective action help
explain why individuals in a collective choose not to free-ride, and suggest that individuals forego the
tendency to free-ride due to the influence of social capital (Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993, 1995). Social
capital is typically defined as “resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or
mobilized in purposive action” (Lin 2001, p.29). Social capital concepts have been offered as
explanations for a variety of pro-social behaviours, including collective action, community
involvement, and differential social achievements. According to Putnam (1995), social capital resides in
the fabric of relationships between individuals and in individuals’ connections with their communities.
In order to contribute knowledge, individuals must think that their contribution to others will be worth
the effort and that some new value will be created, with expectations of receiving some of that values
for themselves (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). These personal benefits or “private rewards” are more
likely to accrue to individuals who actively participate and help others (von Hippel and von Krogh,
2003).
Factors affecting the knowledge contribution

Individual motivations Reputation
Enjoy helping
Structural capital Centrality
Cognitive capital Self-rated expertise
Relational capital Commitment
Reciprocity
Table 5: Factors affecting the knowledge contribution (Wasko & Faraj, 2005
2
The authors have earlier (Wasko and Faraj, 2000) used the concept “electronic communities of practice” but here (Wasko
and Faraj, 2005) they use the concept “electronic network of practice” when referring to the same thing. Now they have
made a difference between more closed communities of people familiar to each other and open networks of strangers.
27
4.2.3 Social influence model
Dholakia, Bagozzi and Klein Pearo (2004) studied the social influence model of consumer participation
in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. They studied the size of the communities, and
the values that people perceive from the use of virtual communities were included in their empirical
survey. Seven different types of online communities were included in the survey (e-mail lists, website
bulletin boards, Usenet newsgroups, real-time online-chat systems, multiplayer virtual games, and
multi-user dungeons (MUDs). Most of the communities were topic-oriented, for example, “Lord of the
Ring enthusiasts” and “Pokemon collectors”. The study focused on the individual motives for
participation in the virtual communities, and five different values was developed for participants: 1)
purposive values, 2) self-discovery values, 3) maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity, 4) social
enhancement, and 5) entertainment value.
The first and the largest group of values is purposive value, which is a combination of informational
and instrumental values. Informational value is one that the participant derives from getting and sharing
information in the virtual community, and from knowing what (presumably credible) others think.
Instrumental value is one that the participant derives from accomplishing specific tasks, such as solving
a problem, generating an idea, influencing others regarding a pet issues or product, validating a decision
already reached or buying a product, through online social interactions. The authors define purposive
value as the value derived from accomplishing some pre-determined instrumental purpose (including
giving or receiving information) through virtual community participation.
The secondly mentioned group of self-discovery values involves understanding and deepening salient
aspects of one’s self through social interactions. Whereas purposive value relates to utilitarian concerns
connecting one’s self to external objects or issues, self-discovery focuses on intrinsic concerns,
constituted by or embedded in the self itself. Maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity, the third
value, refers to the social benefits derived from establishing and maintaining contact with other people
such as social support, friendship, and intimacy. Many participants join such communities mainly to
dispel their loneliness, meet like-minded others, and receive companionship and social support.
Social enhancement is the fourth value that a participant derives from gaining acceptance and approval
of other members, and the enhancement of one’s social status within the community on account of
one’s contributions to it. Also peer recognition is related to the social enhancement. This can be seen
quite often for example in communities for open-source software development. The last element in the
28
framework is the entertainment value, which is derived from fun and relaxation experienced while
playing games or otherwise interacting with others. (Dholakia et al. 2004)
The first two values – purposive and self-discovery – are mainly self-referent while the latter two values
– maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity and social enhancement – are group-referent, which
means that the referent of these values is the self in relation other group members. The distinction
between self- and group-referent values is important, because the authors claim that the type of virtual
community dictates which values are more influential in predicting social influence and participation
therein.
Values Explanation
Purposive values (self) To get information
• informational values To learn how to do things
• instrumental values To provide others with information
To contribute to a pool of information
To generate ideas
To negotiate or bargain
To get someone to do something for me
To solve problems
To make decisions
Self-discovery values (self) To learn about myself and others
To gain insight into myself
Maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity To have something to do with others
(group) To stay in touch
Social enhancement values (group) To impress
To feel important
Entertainment values To be entertained
To play
To relax
To pass the time away when bored
Table 6: Participation values (Dholakia et al. 2004)
Ridings and Gefen (2004) found same type of reasons and motives in their own research. They started
their study by comparing online communities to offline communities. Research in social psychology
has revealed different motivations for individuals to join regular, non-CMC (computer-mediated
communication) groups. Humans have a need to belong ad be affiliated with others, because groups
provide individuals with a source of information and help in achieving goals, give rewards, and
according to social identity theory, people form a social identity of values, attitudes and behavioral
intentions from the perceived membership in distinct self-inclusive real or imagined social groups.
These motivations for joining traditional, face-to-face groups can be extended to examine membership
in virtual communities. (Ridings & Gefen, 2004)
29
After reviewing the literature, Ridings and Gefen (2004) state that the most frequently cited reason to
join a virtual community is to access information. Another reason why people join a virtual community
is the social support that the community can provide. Many studies suggest that virtual communities are
places where people go to find emotional support, sense of belonging, and encouragement, in addition
to instrumental aid. Another possible reasons why people join virtual communities are to seek
friendship or the recreation the communities provide.
Riding and Gefen (2004) asked members in 27 online communities (bulletin boards) why did the
member join this virtual community.
Category Examples
Exchange information To get new ideas.
(obtain and transfer information about To learn about new things.
a topic, educate about a topic, learn To find out how to better grow flowers in my garden.
new things) To learn about new technologies for my business.
To share my knowledge of woodworking with others.
To share my successes and failures with home-schooling
with others.
Social support A way for me to express my anger to others who will
(obtain and give emotional support) sympathize with me.
To talk out my problems and get advice.
I can easily let out my emotions here and others will
understand.
To support others going through a rough time.
To let others know that I have gone through it too.
Friendship To “hang out” with people I enjoy.
(to make friends) To socialize.
To talk with people with the same interests and values.
To chat with people with similar interests.
To find others like me.
Recreation Because it is fun.
(for entertainment) I enjoy reading and posting in the community.
Common interest I like talking about baseball.
(love of the topic of the community) Because I love woodworking is my true love.
Technical reasons The interface is easy to use.
(technical features in the community) The search function is really cool.
Table 7: Category descriptions by Ridings and Gefen (2004)
The reasons for joining a virtual community seemed to be linked to the type of community (health /
interest / pets / professional / recreation). For the group of Interest, Pets, and Recreation communities,
information exchange was cited most often with friendship being the second most popular reason.
Individuals in communities centered around the more serious, and sometimes not so voluntary, life
matters of Health and Professional issues also sought information but members in these virtual
30
communities cited social support as the second most popular reason. The context of a health problem or
a discussion of one’s profession may necessitate more of a need for social support. According to the
authors, the major contribution of the study shows that virtual communities, like real ones, are joined
not only because of utilitarian information exchange, but also because they serve the social need of
having a friend and getting social support.
4.3 Interest-based theories
Dholakia et al. (2004) have already touched these interest-based theories when they mentioned that the
values can be divided in self and group levels. Here we will look at this subject of interest more
specifically.
4.3.1 Self-interest vs. community-interest
Wasko and Faraj (2000) have approached online communities from the perspective of knowledge
exchange. The motivation to exchange knowledge is affected by whether the decision to share is viewed
as primarily economic and motivated by self-interest, or non-economic and motivated by community
interest and moral obligation. They asked the members of three electronic communities of practice why
they have participated in the community. These communities were technically oriented communities
dedicated to developing valuable programming knowledge in rapidly changing technical fields. The
reasons to participate were divided into three groups: tangible returns (such as valuable information),
intangible returns (such as enjoyment from playing a game), and community interest (see Table 8).
Returns Examples
Tangible returns Useful – info valuable
Answer to specific question
Personal gain
Intangible returns Enjoyment / entertaining
Learn
Interaction with a community Multiple viewpoints
(community interest) Peer group
Altruism / pro-social behaviour
Reciprocity
Advance the community
Table 8: Returns from participating in communities (Wasko & Faraj, 2000)
Tangible returns include access to useful information and expertise, answers to specific questions, and
personal gain. There are many facets as to what people consider useful: actually receiving help when
31
seeking advice, the help received is delivered quickly, and the information provided in the community
is valuable. Some members indicated that the information available in the community is up to date, not
available via other sources, and would otherwise be impossible to find. Electronic communities are fast
and useful sources of information, but these communities are also excellent sources of expertise.
Another tangible return is to receive help on a specific problem. Some people participate in he
community to receive some sort of personal gain or status related to their professional position.
Participants indicate that the community is an important resource to enhance standing in the profession,
to establish a reputation that will hopefully translate into a job, or even to generate clients for consulting
business.
Participation in the electronic community of practice is also a source of intangible returns in the forms
of intrinsic satisfaction and self-actualization. Participation in the community is challenging, helps to
refine own thinking, and contributes to the development of new insights. Participation ‘is fun’ in
general, and many participate in the community because they enjoy learning and sharing with others.
One person highlighted the significance to feel competent. People also participate in the community to
enhance their own learning and self-efficacy. People note that answering questions is a challenge, and
that working through problems helps to refine their own thinking.
Related to the community interest, it was mentioned that people do not use the forum to socialize, nor to
develop personal relationships. Instead of these they are interested only in knowledge exchange on as
professional a level as possible. Many people value the processes of exchange, interaction, and the
availability of feedback more so than simple access to information. The ability to access and interact
with colleagues is highly valued when people are geographically isolated, or do no have access to other
members of the practice at their location. In addition, people indicate that they participate in the
community due to moral obligation resulting in pro-social and altruistic behaviors. These people note
that they are willing to help others at their own expense, or because it is part of being a member in the
community. For some members, willingness to help others seems to be a matter of ‘been there, done
that, or ‘the right thing to do’. Finally, people are willing to help others because they are interested in
maintaining the community or profession as a whole. Giving back to the community in return for help
was by far the most cited reason for why people participate. Unlike the direct reciprocity noted in social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), many of the comments reflect that people do not expect to receive future
help from the same individual, but reciprocity in this context reflects generalized reciprocity.
32
4.3.2 Self vs. altruistic
Chesney (2004) focused on knowledge sharing and reported the results of a study into a public space
Internet portal which publishes guitar tabs (tablatures) online, to examine what motivates people to
participate in this activity and what benefits they get from doing so. Two models for knowledge
sharing, open source and the bulletin board, can be compared to determine which tab publishing is
closest to. The author ends up to a conclusion that posting guitar tabs appears to be closer to the open
sources model of sharing knowledge but this not clear cut. With the bulletin board model, knowledge is
usually shared in response to a request; the work is not being published to get feedback on it. With the
open source model, knowledge is shared because a programmer sees a need for additional functionality
in the software and feels they can write the code to achieve it.
Motivations for publishing tabs online were grouped equally into two categories: self and altruistic.
Categories Motivations
Self Ego
- reasons related to the person who published To improve guitar playing
the tabs Pleasure
To document tabs
To improve transcribing skills
To beat boredom
Return on investment
To avoid buying expensive music books
Altruistic To share the song with others
- reasons that were for the benefit of others Guilt, feeling they owe it to the community
To avoid others having to buy expensive
music books
Benefits Satisfaction
Positive feedback
Fame in the community
None
Table 9: Self- and altruistic reasons for knowledge sharing (Chesney 2004)
4.3.3 Value-interest framework
Äkkinen and Tuunainen (2005) have proposed that the customer values of a virtual community should
be viewed in terms of both interest and values (see Table 10). The value dimension for the framework is
provided by Dholakia, Bagozzi and Klein Pearo (2004): purposive values, self-discovery values, social
enhancement, and entertainment. The value “maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity”, however, is
not included in this framework, because we think that interconnectivity is more a property or a pre-
33
requirement for an online community to exist, rather than a motive to join virtual communities. The
examples given by Dholakia et al. (2004) for maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity (to have
something to do with others, to stay in touch) are embedded in the social enhancement values in this
framework. The dimension for interest consists of self-interest and community-interest (Wasko & Faraj
2000). Originally the authors divided self-interest into tangible and in-tangible benefits, but here they
are handled as a whole.
Our Value-Interest framework (see Table 10) divides values into those derived from purposive values,
self-discovery, social enhancement and entertainment. Each value can then be discussed in the context
of self-interest and community-interest.
Interest Self-interest Community-interest

Value
Purposive values Receive and share Performing a collective
information task
Self-discovery Reflecting own thoughts Need to belong to a group

Learn
Social enhancement Appraisal and status Peer support
Online acquaintances Reciprocity
Entertainment Way to spend free-time Multi-user online games
Relax
Table 10: Value-Interest framework for reasons to join/belong to online communities (Äkkinen & Tuunainen, 2005)
Examples of purposive values derived from self-interest are receiving information or, on the other hand,
the joy of sharing information with somebody. When looking purposive value from the community
side, purposive values are created, for example, from performing a collective task. Self-discovery
values include, for example, reflecting own thoughts and learning in the self-interest side, and the need
to belong to a group in the community-interest side. Need to belong to a group is related with the sense
of the community, as well as the coherence of the group. When social enhancement values and self-
interest are encountered, the reasons for participating in online communities include appraisal and
status. But, when we talk about community-interest, there can be reasons like peer support and
reciprocity which are related more to sharing and emotional things than social enhancement values
presented by Dholakia, Bagozzi and Klein Pearo (2004). When entertainment values are divided into
self- and community-interests, online community can be a way to spend one’s free time. When we look
this from the perspective of the community-interest, the reason is same but it will be realized through,
for instance, multi-user online games.
34
We expect that in commercial online communities the consumers are more interested in generating
value for themselves than for the community. We also expect that in commercial context the purposive
values are the most important values for the consumers.
5 Summary and conclusions
5.1 Classifications
The online communities are classified in this paper in two main groups: one is the classification based
on the content of the community, and the other is the classification based on the revenue generation.
The most important classifications are presented in the next table:
Content-based classifications Revenue-based classifications

Stanoevska-Slabeva & Schmid (2001): Plant (2003):
1. discussion communities 1. regulation of the community
2. task / goal oriented communities (regulated – not regulated)
3. virtual worlds 2. profitability of the community
4. hybrid solutions (for-profit – not-for-profit)
3. openness of the community
(open – closed)
Hagel & Armstrong (1997): Hagel & Armstrong (1997): revenue types
1. consumer-focused communities 1. subscription fees
(geographic / demographic / topical 2. usage fees
communities) 3. member fees
2. business-to-business communities
(vertical industry / functional / geographic /
business category communities)
Lechner & Hummel (2002): Hanson (2000):
1. game communities 1. provider-based revenues
2. interest communities 2. user-based revenues
3. business-to-business communities
4. business-to-consumer communities
5. consumer-to-consumer communities
C.E. Porter (2004): Franz & Wolkinger (2003):
1. member-initiated communities 1. standalone
(social / professional communities) (advertising / subscriptions / e-commerce /
2. organization-sponsored communities other sources)
(commercial / non-profit / government 2. add-on
communities) (customer integration / market research /
product development)
Table 11: Summary of classifications for online communities
35
Also the members of the community are classified in this paper. The members can be grouped into
several types: members vs. non-members, so called lurkers vs. posters, users vs. active (or power) users,
or users vs. lead users.
5.2 Theoretical explanations
The theoretical explanations why people join or belong to online communities are divided in this paper
into three main groups: 1) economic theories (or models), 2) social theories (or models), and 3) the
interest perspective. The theories and models are summarized in the table below.
Economic theories for online communities consist of two theories: resource-based model and economic
theory. In the resource-based model (Butler, 2001) people use online communities if the perceived
benefits exceed the sacrificed resources. In the economic theory presented by Gu and Jarvenpaa (2003)
people use online communities if the perceived benefits exceed the costs.
Social theories consist here of three theories or models that are theories for social exchange, social
identity, and social influence:
- Social exchange theory (presented by Gu and Jarvenpaa, 2003, originally from Blau 1964)
highlights the reciprocity of the community members: the people in online communities give
something to the community and expect to get something back in the spirit of reciprocity
immediately or later on in the future.
- According to the social identity theory, discussion boards help members define and maintain their
social identity. It is mentioned related to the social identity theory, that people may be motivated
to share with others due to a sense of social norm or social identification, not necessary in return
for personal gain. It seems irrational that individuals voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and
knowledge toward the collective benefit, when they can easily free-ride on the efforts of others.
Theories of collective action help explain why individuals in a collective choose not to free-ride,
and suggest that individuals forego the tendency to free-ride due to the influence of social capital.
- When the social influence model of consumer participation in online communities was studied by
Dholakia et al. (2004), they developed five different values to participate in online communities:
1) purposive values, 2) self-discovery values, 3) maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity, 4)
social enhancement, and 5) entertainment value. Same type of reasons and motives were found by
Ridings and Gefen (2004).
36
The third aspect is related on the interest of the community members. There were some studies were the
motives and reasons to join communities were divided into two groups: self-interest and community-
interest or altruism. In the study of Wasko and Faraj (2000) the The reasons to participate were divided
into three groups: self-interest (including tangible and intangible returns), and community-interest.
Chesney (2004) found out that the motivations for publishing guitar tablatures online in an online
community were grouped into two categories: self and altruistic. Äkkinen and Tuunainen (2005) have
proposed that the customer values of a virtual community should be viewed in terms of both interest
and values. The Value-Interest framework of Äkkinen and Tuunainen (2005) divides values into those
derived from purposive values, self-discovery, social enhancement and entertainment. Each value can
then be discussed in the context of self-interest and community-interest.
Economic theories Social theories Interest perspective

Resource-based model Social exchange theory Self vs. altruistic
• benefits > resources • (future) reciprocity Self vs. community
Economic theory Social identity theory Value-interest framework
• benefits > costs • social identity of members
• collective action
Social influence model
• purposive values
• self-discovery values
• maintaining interpersonal
interconnectivity
• social enhancement values
• entertainment values
Table 12: Summary of theories and models related to the reasons and motives to join online communities
5.3 Discussion
Because people generally use online communities if the perceived benefits exceed the sacrificed
resources and costs, economic theories can be seen as basic assumptions on the top of which values
coming from social theories (especially from the social influence model) are situated. The third
perspective is interest, because the motives can be divided into self-interest and more altruistic
community-interest. These can be viewed in a matrix format as Äkkinen and Tuunainen (2005) have
proposed in their Value-Interest Framework. The same in a more generic format is in the figure below.
37
Figure 12: Theoretical explanations
The first empirical results seemed to fit well to the Value-Interest Framework (Äkkinen & Tuunainen,
2005). But when the commercial aspect increased in the interviews, we found out that this framework is
not appropriate for every purposes. In the context of commercial online communities the framework
appeared to be too narrow. Thus the framework should be extended to cover commercial dimensions,
too. Beside this extension, it must be remembered to look at the reasons and motives also against the
other theories and models presented in this working paper, instead of using only this Value-Interest
Framework of Äkkinen and Tuunainen (2005). For example in technical-oriented open source
communities seems to be emphasized the things mentioned in the social identity theory. People may be
motivated to share with others due to a sense of social norm or social identification, not necessary in
return for personal gain. It seems irrational that individuals voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and
knowledge toward the collective benefit, when they can easily free-ride on the efforts of others.
Theories of collective action help explain why individuals in a collective choose not to free-ride, and
suggest that individuals forego the tendency to free-ride due to the influence of social capital.
6 Suggestions for further research
Online communities and brand. In the early days of the Internet it was believed that Internet would
decrease the significance of brands because of the lower transaction costs provided by the Internet.
This didn’t happen. For example Timmers (1999) noted that when a brand name is used to host the e-
mall, this is expected to enhance the trust and confidence of customers, and therefore increase readiness
to buy. Nowadays there are virtual communities related to certain brands, for example “Harley
Davidson customers” and “Barbie collectors”.
38
According to Heitmann et al. (2004) brand communities are a traditional concept to enhance customer
attraction, loyalty and retention. Brand communities are supported through either companies or
customers themselves. Heitmann et al. suggest that companies could employ the brand communities for
marketing purposes.
By brand Heitmann et al. (2004) mean the value proposition which is conveyed through the product, the
product use and the marketing communication. Brand communities are defined by Muniz and O’Guinn
(1996) as a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social
relationships among users of a brand. Heitmann et al. (2004) conclude that the constituting elements of
a brand community are a common means to communication, a place or space to interact, a shared
product interest, member entities and the relation between them.
Online communities in multichannel environment. According to Sillence and Baber (2004) the
members of communities employ a range of digital technologies to support their activities and sense of
community, and thus the communities could be called “integrated digital communities”. Sillence and
Baber present a study of the effect of combining two popular technologies, short message system
(SMS) and the World Wide Web. Their study aimed to see if a community, with a specific focus on the
2002 Soccer World Cup, can be developed and supported for the duration of the tournament using a
combination of SMS and web based integration.
Communities of practice. Beside consumer-oriented communities, it would be interesting to the

“CoPs”, virtual communities of practice, e.g. a virtual community of ISS researchers or a community of
GSS facilitators and study the value-creation process in communities-of-practice. Decentralized,
Internet-based group support systems would be extremely useful in virtual communities of practice and
this provides an interesting research area.
Online communities in product development. Recently there have been a lot of studies related to the
virtual communities as a tool to integrate customers to product development processes. Füller et al.
(2004) have published an interesting article on how to utilize the innovative potential of online
communities. The authors have divided the innovation process in different phases: 1) idea generation
and concepts, 2) design and engineering and 3) test and launch, and they present how virtual
communities can add more value to the process. According to Jeppesen & Molin (2003) there are two
kinds of innovative processes in the consumer online community: one that breeds new content to the
product and another that supplies ideas for new product versions or genuinely new products. Also
Nambisan (2002) has studied designing virtual customer environments for new product development.
39
Leckner (2003) claims that customers are likely to take into account other customers’ opinion during
configuring a product, and the taste of a single person is often influenced by peers and community.
Leckner suggests that the answer to the question “How to integrate the customer into the design and
development phase of the product ?” is in using online configurator tools, e.g. on automakers’ sites.
Community of customers provide benefits during adapting a product to the customer’s needs and
preferences according to Leckner. The theme “new product development” – one of the add-on services -
could be approached by case study and find out new ways for members to participate e.g. in the process
of generating new services to the web site.
Online game communities. Games are one element in the topic-based classification of Lechner and
Hummel (2002). Currently there is a lot of research going on around mobile games in Helsinki School
of Economics and thus this research area would fit in to this. The first studies related to the success of
virtual communities are focused on game communities, e.g. Ginsburg and Weisband (2004) have
studied the business success in the case of internet chess club.
Online communities in traditional companies. The most studies related to virtual communities and
their commercial use are focused on companies that sell products and services in the company’s web
site. It would be interesting to find out how a more traditional company that operates in business-to-
business environment and is not selling anything in the internet could use virtual communities. An
industrial organization could for example create virtual communities horizontally for sales agents or
vertically for manufacturers in the manufacturing process. Usually people talk about extranets in this
kind of situations but virtual communities could be a start for an extranet or complement the extranet
with standardized community solution for information sharing. One of the cases presented in Sloan
Management Review by Williams and Cothrel (2000) is focused on Ford Motor Company where
engineers share knowledge, collaborate in work groups, and find knowledge using the company’s
intranet. Ford’s community improves the speed, quality, and cost efficiency of new product
development. Thus there is a “back-up” from the literature to ensure that communities are not the same
as intranets / extranets.
Social software. Jim Cashel has interviewed in 2003 Joseph Cothrel who has done much research on
virtual communities. Cothrel: “Social software encompasses everything what is called community and
collaborative software up to now (e-mails, discussion forums, groupware, instant messaging), plus the
relatively recent additions of blogs (=weblogs), wikis and the yet-to-be-named category of tools for
connecting with other people (Meetup, Ryze, Friendster, etc). … A few years ago I used to talk about
40
three eras in the development of online communities: formation, fragmentation, and integration… Blogs
have taken that fragmentation a step further. Conversations that previously were captured in a single
discussion thread are now distributed across many separate blog sites. Even though blogs take
fragmentation further than ever before, they also pave the way toward integration – toward weaving
online community interactions into our life and work in useful ways… Social software adapts to its
environment, instead of requiring its environment to adapt to software.
41
7 References
Amit, Raphael; Zott, Christopher (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal,
22: 493-520
Bearman, P. (1997). Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology (102:5), March 1997,
pp.1383-1415
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Blanchard, Anita L.; Markus, Lynne M. (2004). The Experienced “Sense” of a Virtual Community:
Characteristics and Processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Winter 2004
(Vol. 35, No. 1)
Brown, Shona L.; Tilton, Andrew; Woodside, Dennis M. (2001). The Case for Online Communities.
The McKinsey Quarterly, 2002 Number 1.
Butler, B.S. (2001). Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based
Model of Online Social Structures. Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.346
Cashel, Jim (2003). Interview with Joseph Cothrel. Available at:

http://www.onlinecommunityreport.com/features/cothrel2 (18.2.2004)
Chesney, T. (2004). “other people benefit. i benefit from their work.” Sharing Guitar Tabs Online.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 10, Issue 1, Article 5, November 2004.
Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/chesney.html (4.4.2005)
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA
Cothrel, J.P. (2000) Measuring the success of an online community. Strategy and Leadership, February
2000, pp.17-21.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. & Klein Pearo, L. (2004). A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research
in Marketing. 21 (2004), 241-263
Donath, Judith S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith and P.
Kollock (eds.), Communities in cyberspace. (pp. 29–59) London: Routledge.
Elliott, Steve (2002). Electronic commerce. B2C Strategies and Models. Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Franz, Reinhard; Wolkinger, Thomas (2003). Customer Integration with Virtual Communities. Case
study: The online community of the largest regional newspaper in Austria. Proceedings of the Hawai’I
International Conference on System Sciences, January 6-9, 2003, Big Island, Hawaii.
Füller, Johann; Bartl, Michael; Ernst, Holger; Mühlbacher, Hans (2004). Community Based Innovation:
A Method to Utilize the Innovative Potential of Online Communities, in: Proceedings of the 37th HICSS
Conference, Hawaii 2004.
42
Gefen, David (2002). Customer Loyalty in E-Commerce. Journal of The Association for Information
Systems (Volume 3, 2002), pp.27-51
Ginsburg, Mark; Weisband, Suzanne (2004): A Framework for Virtual Community Business Success:
The Case of the Internet Chess Club, in Proceedings of the 37th HICSS Conference, Hawaii 2004
Gu, B. & Jarvenpaa, S. (2003). Online Discussion Boards for Technical Support: The Effect of Token
Recognition on Customer Contributions. Proceedings on 24. International Conference on Information
Systems.
Hagel, John III; Armstrong, Arthur G. (1997). Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual
Communities. Harvard Business School Press.
Hanson, Ward (2000). The Principles of Internet Marketing. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College
Publishing.
Heitmann, Mark; Prykop, Catja; Aschmoneit, Peter (2004). Using Means-end Chains to Build Mobile
Brand Communities. Proceedings of the 37th HICSS Conference, Hawaii, 2004.
Hogg, M. A. ; Terry, D. J.(2000). “Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational

Contexts,” Academy of Management Review (25:1), January 2000, pp. 121-140.
Holmström, Helena (2000). “Getting to know your customers. Implications of virtual communities in
on-line commerce” in Svensson, L.; Snis, U. et al. (eds.): Proceedings of IRIS 23, University of
Trollhättan
Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L.; Tractinsky, Noam; Vitale, Michael (2000). Consumer trust in an Internet store.
Information Technology and Management 1 (2000), pp.45-71.
Jeppesen, Lars Bo; Molin, Måns J. (2003) Consumers as Co-developers: Learning and Innovation
Outside the Firm. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2003
Jones, Quentin (1997). "Virtual communities, virtual settlements, and cyber-archaeology: A theoretical
outline," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, Available at
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/jones.html (8.4.2005)
Jones, Q. ; Rafaeli, S. (2000). Time to Split, Virtually: “Discourse Architecture” and “Community
Building” Create Vibrant Virtual Publics. Electronic Markets, 10 (4), 214-223.
Koufaris, Marios; Hampton-Sosa ,William (2004). The Development of Initial Trust in an Online
Company by New Customers. Information & Management 41 (2004), pp. 377-397.
Lea, M.; Spears, R. (1992) “Paralanguage and Social Perception in Computer-Mediated

Communication,” Journal of Organizational Computing (2:3), 1992, pp. 321-341.
Lechner Ulrike; Hummel, Johannes (2002). Business Models and System Architectures of Virtual
Communities: From a Sociological Phenomenon to Peer-to-Peer Architectures. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce. Volume 6, Number 3, Spring 2002, pp. 41
Leckner, Thomas (2003). Support for online configurator tools by customer communities, in:
Proceedings of the 2nd Interdisciplinary World Congress on Mass Customization and Personalization
(MCPC), 2003. Available at: http://e-business.fhbb.ch/eb/publications.nsf/id/271 (8.4.2005)
43
Lee, F. S. L., D. Vogel, and M. Limayem (2003). "Virtual Community Informatics: A Review and
Research Agenda", The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:1, 2003,
47-61.
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Muniz, A.; O’Guinn, T. (1996). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 2,
pp.412-432
Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage.
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, 242–266
Nambisan, Satish (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development:
toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 2002. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.392-413.
Olson, M. Jr. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Plant, Robert (2004). Online communities. Technology in Society. 26(2004), pp.51-65.
Porter, Constance Elise (2004). A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi-Disciplinary Foundation

for Future Research. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 10 (1), Article 3, November
2004. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10 /issue1/porter.html (4.4.2005)
Preece, Jenny; Nonnecke, Blair; Andrews, Dorine (2004 forthcoming). The top five reasons for lurking:
improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy (6),
pp.65-78
Rheingold, Howard (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Mass,
Addison Wesley
Ridings, Catherine M. & Gefen, David (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out
Online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 10, Issue 1, Article 4, November 2004.
Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html (4.4.2005)
Sillence, E.; Baber, C. (2004). Integrated digital communities: combining web-based interaction with
text messaging to develop a system for encouraging group communication and competition. Interacting
with Computers, 16 (2004), pp.93-113.
Stanoevska-Slabeva, Katarina; Schmid, Beat F. (2001). A Typology of Online Communities and

Community Supporting Platforms. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences 2001.
Timmers, Paul (1998). Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electronic Markets, Vol 8, No.2,
pp.3-8.
44
Typaldos, Cynthia (2000). Community Standards. Interview in “Fast Company” by Katharine
Mieszkowski. Issue 38, September 2000, page 369.
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/38/ideazone.html
von Hippel, Eric (1986). Lead Users a Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, vol 32.
No.7, pp.791-805
von Hippel, Eric; von Krogh, Georg (2003). “Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective”
Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science” Organization Science 14 (2) 208-223
Wasko, M. McLure & Faraj S. (2000). “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in
electronic communities of practice. Strategic Information Systems. No. 9, pp.155-173
Wasko, M. McLure; Faraj S. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge
Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.35-57 / March 2005
Williams, Ruth L.; Cothrel, Joseph (2000). Four smart ways to run online communities. Sloan
Management Review, 41(4):81-91
Yap, Lee Xian; Bock, Gee-Woo (2005). An empirical investigation of the effects of size on strength of
relationship and commitment in a virtual community, in proceedings of 13th ECIS (European
Conference on Information Systems), Regensburg 2005.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and
Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 (July 1988), pp.2-22.
Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Donlevy, J. (2000). Strategies for value creation in e-commerce: best practice in
Europe. European Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 5, pp.463-475
Äkkinen, Miia & Tuunainen, Virpi Kristiina (2005). Sources of value-creation in consumer-oriented
online communities – Results from a pilot study. Frontiers of e-Business Research 2004 (FeBR 2004),
Seppä, M. et al. (ed.), 52-67, Tampere University of Technology and University of Tampere.
45

Virtual Communities PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Virtual Communities PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Virtual Communities PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miia Äkkinen

HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Information Systems Science

© Miia Äkkinen and

Helsinki School of Economics -

2 Definitions of virtual communities ................................................................................................... 8

3 Classifications of virtual communities............................................................................................ 11

4 Theoretical explanations on the reasons and motives to belong to an online community.............. 23

5 Summary and conclusions .............................................................................................................. 35

6 Suggestions for further research ..................................................................................................... 38

Figure 1: Classification of virtual communities by Stanoevska-Slabeva & Schmid (2001) ................... 11

Figure 2: Community types by Hagel & Armstrong (1997).................................................................... 13

Figure 3: Classification of virtual communities by Lechner & Hummel (2002)..................................... 14

Figure 4: A typology of virtual communities by Porter (2004) .............................................................. 14

Figure 5: Five Ps of Virtual Communities by Porter (2004).................................................................... 15

Figure 6: Classification of virtual communities by Plant (2003)............................................................. 16

Figure 7: Types of revenues by Hagel and Armstrong (1997) ................................................................ 17

Figure 8: Classification of virtual communities by Hanson (2000)......................................................... 17

Figure 9: Classification of virtual communities by Franz & Wolkinger (2003)...................................... 18

Figure 10: Objectives of virtual communities by Cothrel (2000)............................................................ 19

Figure 11: Classification of members in virtual communities................................................................. 20

Figure 12: Theoretical explanations......................................................................................................... 38

Table 2: Elements of virtual communities ................................................................................................. 9

Table 3: Classification of communities according to their members by Cothrel 2000............................ 19

Table 4: Resources and benefits of communities by Butler (2001)......................................................... 24

Table 6: Participation values (Dholakia et al. 2004)................................................................................ 29

Table 7: Category descriptions by Ridings and Gefen (2004)................................................................. 30

Based on the similarities on these definitions, characteristics of a virtual community can be

2.1 Elements of virtual communities

2.2 Virtual communities, settlements and networks

3.1 Content-based classifications

Discussion Task / Goal Oriented Virtual World Hybrid

P2P Communication, Design / Avatars

Topic Oriented Online Learning

Figure 1: Classification of virtual communities by Stanoevska-Slabeva & Schmid (2001)

Geographic Vertical industry

Figure 2: Community types by Hagel & Armstrong (1997)

In a consumer environment, community development may take place in one of three

Business-to-business communities are divided in four groups: vertical industry communities,

Beside business-to-consumer and business-to-business communities, Lechner and Hummel

Games Interest B2B B2C C2C

Figure 3: Classification of virtual communities by Lechner & Hummel (2002)

Establishment Member-Initiated Organization-Sponsored

Relationship Social Professional Commercial Nonprofit Government

Figure 4: A typology of virtual communities by Porter (2004)

The two first-level categories are member-initiated and organization-sponsored. Member-

3.2 Revenue-based classifications

Figure 6: Classification of virtual communities by Plant (2003)

Subscription fees Usage fees Member fees

Content delivery fees

Figure 7: Types of revenues by Hagel and Armstrong (1997)

Content, Product and

Figure 8: Classification of virtual communities by Hanson (2000)

Advertising Subscriptions Customer Market Product

E-Commerce Other Sources

Figure 9: Classification of virtual communities by Franz & Wolkinger (2003)

Building stronger Increasing efficiency, Acquiring Direct

“add-on” elements in Figure 9 “standalone” element